FairTax Act-Is it a viable solution?

ROTFL!!

Ah, no. I have identified the relevant indisputable facts of economics and their logical implications. It is YOU who have merely chanted your script. Look:

"Nobody is allowed to think about recovering publicly created land value for public purposes and benefit instead of giving it away to landowners in return for nothing as part of a reformed tax system that includes other taxes, because all proposals to recover land rent have to be dismissed as 'the single tax,' especially when they explicitly include other proposed sources of public revenue."

That is not an argument, Reiver. It is merely you chanting your script.

It is also you lying about what I have plainly written.

"Nobody is allowed to think about recovering publicly created land value for public purposes and benefit instead of giving it away to landowners in return for nothing because Henry George died a long time ago."

That is not an argument. Reiver. It is merely you chanting your script.

"Nobody is allowed to think about recovering publicly created land value for public purposes and benefit instead of giving it away to landowners in return for nothing because that is not the kind of tax anyone is allowed to think about."

That is not an argument, Reiver. It is merely you chanting your script.

"Nobody is allowed to think about recovering publicly created land value for public purposes and benefit instead of giving it away to landowners in return for nothing because this is the Internet, and it makes me feel superior to dismiss anyone who identifies any facts about land as 'Georgist wannabes,' especially when they have been at pains to distinguish their views from Henry George's."

That is not an argument, Reiver. It is merely you chanting your script.

You are lying, Reiver. LYING. You KNOW that I have been completely honest. I have identified the relevant facts and I am prepared to debate them (which you are self-evidently not). It is YOU who have adopted the dishonest techniques of supercilious dismissal, name calling, strawman fabrications, ignoratio elenchi fallacies, and flat-out lies like:

That is a lie, Reiver, as anyone who has followed our exchanges here knows.

It is YOU who hide from practicalities behind your anti-land-tax script, and you know it.

Then why are you trying to defend inherently unfair and inefficient taxes, and to stop anyone from thinking about an inherently fair and efficient one?

A "notion" is all it is. Wages are the payment for labor. Labor is performed by individual human beings. There is therefore no "social wage," and never can be. If you were willing to know any relevant facts (you aren't), you would know that equity and efficiency would be better served by restoration of the equal individual right to liberty -- the liberty to access the opportunities and use the resources nature and the community provide equally for all -- rather than cash welfare handouts.

Only if you have already decided to tax private production, exchange, consumption, and capital investment, rather than recovering publicly created value for public purposes and benefit.

 

Stop lying, Reiver. It is you who have offered nothing but dishonest tactics, and you know it. Look:

That's three dishonest tactics in one sentence, Reiver. A near-record performance for you (I believe you have made it all the way to four on at least one occasion).

Your unsupported claims of irrelevance are not an argument, Reiver. They are just you chanting your dishonest script in order to run away and hide from actual discussion of the facts.

You know that I neither call nor consider myself a Georgist, Reiver, and have been at pains to distinguish my views on land rent recovery from Henry George's, so hauling George's name into the discussion is not an argument. It is just you chanting your dishonest script in order to run away and hide from actual discussion of the facts.

You also know that I have never proposed or advocated abolition of all taxes but a tax on the unimproved value of land, so characterizing my views as single tax advocacy is not an argument. It is just you chanting your dishonest script in order to run away and hide from any actual discussion of the facts.

You are lying again. I have stated explicitly, many times, that it is relevant, and I have proved it.

So that was just another in your endless repertoire of dishonest tactics.

Lie. Land taxation is so practical, so easy to implement, and so effective in practice that it was used successfully even in ancient societies where hardly anyone could read.

Lie. I have stated explicitly, many times, that land rent recovery should be integrated with restoration of the equal individual right to liberty via a uniform, universal individual land tax exemption analogous to the universal individual income tax exemption. This integrated tax and benefit system is both more fair and more efficient than your proposal, as it preserves incentives and provides the disadvantaged with superior access to opportunity.

No, you are just lying. Again. You can demonstrate no inequity or inefficiency in what I have proposed, which is presumably why you have never even tried to do so. All you do is chant your dishonest script and relentlessly pound away at your dishonest tactics, as proved above. Anyone who has read many of your contentless anti-land-tax spew posts -- and there have been many of them -- knows that is true, including you.

 

I'd bet that you'd reply with no content, but there would be no fun in it.

No content!

Still no content!

Still no content!

Still no content!

Quote]You are lying, Reiver. LYING. You KNOW that I have been completely honest. I have identified the relevant facts and I am prepared to debate them (which you are self-evidently not). It is YOU who have adopted the dishonest techniques of supercilious dismissal, name calling, strawman fabrications, ignoratio elenchi fallacies, and flat-out lies like:[/quote]
Back to your “you lie” script! Didn’t see that coming...

Consider your silly little quote that you’ve tried to bore me to death with:

" "Nobody is allowed to think about recovering publicly created land value for public purposes and benefit instead of giving it away to landowners in return for nothing as part of a reformed tax system that includes other taxes, because all proposals to recover land rent have to be dismissed as 'the single tax,' especially when they explicitly include other proposed sources of public revenue."

No one has suggested land tax cannot be used. It is, however, painfully obvious that a land tax provides no solution for modern day issues of equity and efficiency. I demonstrated that by referring to the need for integration of tax and benefit systems. The only way to easily control the social wage and to eliminate threats created with high effective marginal rates of tax. You rant on about Georgism and that’s fair enough. However, pretending that land tax provides any practical solution is clearly a load of bobbins.

I refer directly to the problems generated by tax systems. That will necessarily lead to critique of the orthodoxy where appropriate. We have to be careful, for example, with the textbook mathematical modeling of ‘optimal taxes’. Assumptions are made which, whilst enabling easy conclusions over specific market distortions, ignore the multiple taxes that are necessarily needed in actual tax systems.

In contrast, you peddle Georgism 101. You also do it badly, often relying on particularly emotive ranting.

This is a quite random response to my comment. You haven’t got the means to deny that any notion of equity or efficiency must refer to how tax and benefits interact. You’re therefore left with randomness.

This reply just informs me that you’re innocent of the available literature into taxes. The social wage is calculated as the difference between 'social expenditures directed toward the working population and the taxes directly levied on this same group'. It becomes a more clear-cut measure of redistribution effects.

A liberty argument would have to refer to socialism, given its only then that worker property rights are protected. However, given you’re only spewing Georgism 101, we both know that you haven’t got any means to understand labour outcome.

Again, a random response! Unemployment and poverty traps reflect the unfortunate interaction of tax and benefit systems. They’re often ignored as work incentive analysis is often inappropriately applied to the higher income deciles. You ignore them as your Georgist 101 requires a pathetic exaggeration of land tax and a ‘head in the sand’ effort over the nature of modern capitalism.

 

Its painfully obvious that it is Georgism 101. Your need to deny the obvious reflects your desire to pretend relevancy.

You exaggerate the land tax in the same way as the single tax drivel. You also avoid the consequences of the multiple taxes that are in reality required, as shown by your failure to respond to the issues created by unemployment and poverty traps

Just the same ole script from you!

 

The fair tax system would leave the low income with fewer dollars to spend and the better off with more.

THose who can least afford to pay taxes should pay fewer, those who can afford to pay more should pay more.

 

Why?

The logical extension is a 100% tax, and even redistribution.

Equal outcome. And, no one would work.

 

No, that's just another painfully obvious attempt by you to run away and hide from facts you cannot refute.

Your frantic, almost sexual need to dismiss all facts of land economics as "Georgism 101" reflects your desire to pretend the facts that prove you wrong can be deleted from reality if you only chant your anti-land tax script long enough, often enough, and fervently enough.

You dismiss, ignore, derogate and deride the land tax, without ever offering any kind of relevant facts or logic, because you cannot refute anything I have said.

No, that's just another flat-out lie from you. I eliminate such traps at their origin by taxing privilege and costs imposed on society, not production, income, wages, exchange, capital investment, value added, consumption or sales.

No, I actually identify facts and their logical implications. You are the one following a script, a fact that has been painfully obvious for a long time.

 

One of the two fundamental principles of taxation is "ability to pay."

Nonsense. The logical extension is taxation of assets, which measure ability to pay, not income, which doesn't.

More nonsense. Garbage in, garbage out. The outcomes are not equal, just less unfair. And isn't it odd how no one ever worries about the rich and privileged not having to work or contribute anything in return for their astronomical incomes, while the poor not having to work in order to stave off hunger is somehow an atrocity?

 

Don't be dishonest now! I have no ill feeling to land tax. I do, however, have tut at Georgist 101. You've been guilty of that and that has, as usual, limited your comments (typically preferring cliche to actually responding to practical tax demands and flaws)

 

That is not the logical outcome. The logical outcome is that if a government needs $X, then you tax those who are able to pay more at a higher rate than those who cannot afford to do so.

An athlete who makes $65,000,000 a year to chase a leather ball around like in high school can certainly afford to pay more in taxes, and still live better than most Americans, then someone who makes $30,000 a year.

The slippery slope need not apply.

 

And you'd lose.

No, that is a lie, Reiver. The content identified the fact that your unvarying anti-land tax script has no content, and that you lied.

Lies. The content was to identify the contentless -- and relentlessly dishonest -- character of your unvarying anti-land tax script.

How else can I respond to your lies? If you don't like seeing your lies identified as such, stop telling lies. Because I am not going to stop identifying lies as such.

Then why do you devote most of your waking hours to trying to make sure no one thinks it could possibly be used? You have been chanting that it is "irrelevant" whenever the possibility is mentioned, because it's "Georgism 101" and Henry George died a long time ago. Evidently you think Pythagoras's Theorem must be irrelevant too, because he died even longer ago.

Nope. Wrong again. In fact, as the current and ongoing global financial crisis caused by land speculation proves so very conclusively, it does. In spades.

No, that is just another lie. You demonstrated nothing whatever. You merely claimed it, without offering any factual or logical argument to back up your claim -- as is your wont. Nor will you ever be offering any such argument.

No, that's just your unvarying ignoratio elenchi fallacy. High effective marginal rates of tax are only a threat when you are taxing the wrong thing in the first place. You have to shriek your cretinous imprecations at land rent recovery because you are committed to taxing the wrong things, and must therefore try to stop anyone from thinking about taxing the right things.

No, that is just another lie from you. I never mention Georgism. YOU are the only one here who rants on about Georgism. Not me. YOU.

Nope. Wrong again. Land rent recovery has worked in practice everywhere it has ever been tried; it must do so as a matter of immutable economic law; so it is your pretense that it is irrelevant that is in fact the load of bobbins.

Nope. Wrong again. The problems you identify are only generated by the kind of tax systems you advocate, which are inherently unfair and inefficient because they tax the wrong things. Those problems simply do not apply, at all, to land rent recovery systems.

I have not seen any critique of land rent recovery from you, ever. I see false and absurd claims aplenty, supercilious dismissals, name calling, strawmen, ignoratio elenchi fallacies, etc., etc., but I have seen no critique. None. And I do not expect ever to see one, because you know that I will demolish it and humiliate you for your ignorance and dishonesty.

I see. So, what you are saying is that we mustn't accept the established scientific analysis detailing the wholesome nutritional content of fresh apples, because that analysis ignores the harmful effects of the foods people actually consume more of, such as french fries and sugar-sweetened soda.

It would be difficult to overstate the anti-scientific, anti-logical, anti-factual stupidity and dishonesty of such claims.

How emotive would it be appropriate for me to be about an annual Holocaust?

No, it precisely identifies the illogical, dishonest and immoral nature of your unvarying script regarding land rent recovery.

??? I have repeatedly identified the FACTS about how they interact, and in response you just chant your unvarying anti-land tax script.

I have stated the relevant facts, and you know it very well.

<yawn> I have read millions of words on the subject, and understand it far better than you, as I prove here on an almost hourly basis.

No, that's just a nonce definition of a propaganda term with no real support in peer-reviewed journals, no precise meaning, no reliably measurable magnitude and no real relevance.

No, that's indisputably false, as worker property rights are individual, not social. Socialism inherently violates worker property rights as well as liberty rights by depriving the worker of the liberty to accumulate and use his own property productively.

<yawn> More of your unvarying script.

LOL!! OTC, I've proved it is YOU who lack any means to understand labor outcome, as you are determined always to preserve your ignorance of the Law of Rent and the Henry George Theorem against even the most conclusive educational assault.

Again, a flat-out lie.

But only of tax and benefit systems that, unlike systems based on the principles of liberty and justice, are unfortunate to begin with.

No, YOU ignore the irrelevance of work incentives to the top percentile, whose astronomical incomes derive overwhelmingly from rents.

The nature of "modern" capitalism is the same nature capitalism had 100 years ago, or 200 or 300: conflation of capital with privilege to justify rent seeking. It's true that other privileges -- IP monopolies, private bank issuance of debt money, corruption in government dealings with private interests, etc. -- now account for a relatively much, much larger fraction of GDP than they did in simpler times, while the fraction that goes to land rent has grown more slowly. But landowning is still by far the largest single source of rent, and still accounts for about half the total.

 

Then why is the government collecting $2.2T (from 130M tax payers), when is spends $3.8T. The government doesn't limit it's spending to taxes collected (that will lose voters), and won't raise taxes to meet it's spending (that will lose voters). So they levy a tax on those that don't vote - tomorrows tax payers.

The 4% tax increase on the rich brings in $70B, the deficit is $1.6T. Tax everyone making more than $250K at 100%, only brings in $1.2T, not enough.

The budget is $3.8T
There are 130M tax payers.
3.8T / 130M = ~29K
The average income is $50K
We have a spending problem.....

When SSI started, lifespan was 62, SSI started a 65. Lifespan is now 73, SSI now starts at 67, but you can start collecting at 62. About 1/3 of the 54M collecting SSI are not retired....

Medicare collects about $165K per person, and spends abut $360K per person.

Slippery slopes don't apply?

 

??? This, from YOU??!?!?? ROTFL!!!

Then why do you always chant your unvarying anti-land tax script:

"Georgism is one approach to land rent recovery, so any form of land rent recovery should be called 'Georgism' and dismissed without discussion."

"Land rent recovery must be irrelevant to problems of budget, taxes, public revenue, fairness and economic efficiency because Henry George died a long time ago."

"Land rent recovery is not practical because it doesn't cause any of the problems current taxes that burden production cause."

blah, blah, blah...

See? No content. Just name calling.

Despicable.

blah, blah, blah...

Nothing but more of your unvarying anti-land tax script of stupid, dishonest filth.

You have never identified any practical tax demands or flaws that applied to land rent recovery. And as you have not lacked opportunity to do so, IMO you can't, and never will.

 

Excellent debate subject!

First and foremost we should remember that taxation should only be used to fund essential government activities, in the case of the federal government this should be limited to national defense, international trade, etc.

Now for the fair tax. The only way I would ever be in favor of it is if there were a constitutional amendment passed that this would indeed replace the income tax.

Application
If we adopted the fair tax (aka the consumption tax), IMHO the best way to go about it would be to make certain staple items exempt (e.g. groceries, clothing under a certain dollar amount, phone service, utilities, etc.). This would allow people to purchase the bare essentials of life without being taxed on them thus eliminate the liberal accusation that we are "taxing the poor". Anything other than these items should be a flat percentage, period. Everything you buy is taxed at this percentage regardless of the dollar amount or whether someone in gubment considers it a "moral" or "healthy" or "luxury" item.

The rate should be reviewed each year to determine if the current tax rate is causing a surplus and, if so, the rate should be reduced (notice that I didn't say increased).

We have a balanced budget amendment, the government engages in zero based budgeting where they have a certain amount of revenue and they start with the most essential items and work their way down the food chain till they run out of money - everything else gets cuts.

Because the fair tax is a percentage of purchases the revenue will automatically adjust for inflation (e.g. a $150 concert ticket nets $15 at a ten percent rate, when inflation hits a $250 concert ticket nets $25).

The only time the percentage should be raised is in the event of war of emergency. This should be voted on by congress and passed as an amendment to the constitution. If at all possible the vote should take place approximately 6 months before a congressional election.

Pros
1. It would be a complete and utter reform of the tax system and remove the government's power to use taxation to engage in social engineering.

2. After moving beyond a certain standard of living everyone would have to pay their fair share.

3. It would encourage saving and investing.

4. It would dramatically reduce the IRS payroll.

5. It would take away the aiblity of the (truly) rich to hire expensive tax attorneys to help them avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

6. It would capture a lot of money that is currently spent by drug dealers, prostitutes, organized crime, etc.

7. It would put you, the taxpayer in charge of how much taxes you pay based on your spending habits.

8. It should make the libs happy because the rich will pay significantly more in taxes than the poor, but anyone who spends money beyond the basic necessities will have to pay something. Everyone needs some skin in the game.

Cons
1. It would put a boatload of lawyers and accountants out of business (not necessarily a bad thing from my perspective).

2. It would open up new possibilities for black market trading in otherwise "legitimate" goods and services.

3. Uh... can't think of anything else.

 

I don’t think I’ve ever seen content from you. You deliberately avoid modern economics because of its inconsistency with your old-hatted approach.

Statement of fact. You’ve replied with no relevant economic analysis, using the same ole Georgist nonsense to hide from modern tax analysis

One already knows that this is your favourite word, using it willy-nilly in order to minimise the dissonance associated with the one dimensionality created through emotive rant

You could try a mature response: respond to modern economic problems with modern economic analysis. It isn’t a scary proposition, you’ll just have to do some reading.

For someone who uses “lie” splurging so often you do like to include obvious dishonesty. I spend very little time with the disciples of Georgism 101. I will of course admit the obvious: ignoring the economic problems from failing to integrate tax and benefit systems, just to maintain a land tax rant, isn’t cunning.

Random response again. You have made no mention of the modern day tax issues of equity and efficiency. You simply ignore the problems that, without doubt, are created (as shown by your complete failure to respond to the important issue: effective marginal rates of tax which, due to the failure to consider pre and post-tax income distributions, significantly impact on our understanding of work incentive effects)

That you don’t see the logic behind the integration of tax and benefit systems doesn’t surprise me. You’d have to catch up with the tax debate and that will lead to a realization that you’re wasting your time with the land tax ranting. The interesting aspect of the integration of tax and benefit is that a major proponent, Friedman, actually- without fully realizing it- found a level of consistency with left wing thought into the minimum income guarantee.

You have two alternatives. First, exaggerate the role of land tax (your usual erroneousness). Second, ignore that the taxes required- which without doubt will either directly or indirectly impact on the labour market- will accentuate the problems created through benefit withdrawal. You’ll probably try to do both!

We’ve already gone through this. You need to disguise your Georgism 101, given its clearly low powered bobbins. You’re just not very good at it! You might want to get some acting or creative writing lessons.

And there you go with your standard attempt at exaggerating the role of the land tax. Georgism 101!

A clear fib. I’m a socialist and advocate a completely different tax system. In particular, the support of firm creation is vital. This is then focused on how, to maximize the exploitation of tacit knowledge, redistribution policy designed to significantly impact on the effects of risk adversity is key.

I’m of course referring to the problems created in tax systems in modern capitalism. You won’t understand that as you haven’t budged from the days of Long Dead George.

I have no need to exaggerate the role of land tax. I’ve appreciated that Georgism is irrelevant, typically restricted to marginal issues such as environmentalism. You just pretend otherwise.

Another sweet example of how, when confronted with economic content, you cannot respond with mature remark. You’re probably quite innocent of the optimal tax literature, as detailed in public economics. Given that, I’m not surprised that you cannot respond to my simple remark: the weaknesses within the theoretical constructs given their inability to model the multiple taxes that are, without doubt, required in actual tax systems. Don’t get me wrong now, I’m not rejecting all of the tax literature. The analysis into the theory of the second best, for example, is particularly relevant to a thread that suggests taxes dominated by simple taxation regulations are possible.

If you were interested in mature debate over taxes you’d have corrected your previous error. Instead you merely added to it.

Another clear fib. You’ve provided nothing of value over how equity and efficiency analysis can only be understand through how taxes and benefits interact. You’ve tried cliché, but even then it was rather low powered. Put it right now! Provide some economic analysis that refers directly to that interaction. Try not to dodge!

I’d love to see facts from you. Let’s see some. How about providing an empirical study into how land tax will impact on poverty and unemployment traps? Wouldn’t that be spiffing?

I’m happy to peruse some of the literature that has impacted on your views. Could you give me some references? The Harvard system will suffice!

This is an ignorant response only informing me that you haven’t read or understand the literature that measures the social wage and how, through tax and benefit changes, it changes over time.

We’ll add socialism to the political economy list that you don’t understand. Socialism eliminates underpayment/exploitation (the vocab choice dependent on the school of thought being used). That refers directly to the protection of worker property rights. In your Georgism 101 rant you’ve completely misunderstood the nature of economic rents.

Nice to see some admission that you’re just a Long Dead Henry patsy. I’ve of course already responded to this drivel:

You of course also know that the Henry George Theorem (HGT) is minor stuff, specifically aiding urban economics in optimal population analysis. Even then its of questionable value. Behrens and Murata (2009, City size and the Henry George Theorem under monopolistic competition, Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 65 Issue 2, pp 228-235), for example, concludes that the "HGT does not hold in second-best economies under monopolistic competition with variable elasticities"

This doesn’t make any sense. What argument over work incentives are you trying to make? Remember that you’re responding to a comment that refers directly to the nature of labour supply analysis and the ‘true’ substitution and income effects that hinder those on low income.

This is brilliant! In your attempt to pretend that your Georgism 101 is still relevant you’re prepared to completely ignore how capitalism has evolved. A strikingly silly comment given the rise, for example, of the managerial class and the radical changes in the nature of firm hierarchy.

 

That's a lie. You explicitly told me you did long ago. You claimed it was an inferior solution to the land problem, but then refused to explain what the superior solution was.

At any rate, you flat-out stated ill feeling to the land tax. The forum you did it on is down, otherwise I'd link it.

 

Please back up with evidence! I know you lot like to herd, but there's no need to make stuff up

How convenient! My stance hasn't changed: I find Georgism 101 of no value as its a particularly marginal offering that ensnares the gullible into avoiding objective study of political economy

 

I'd love to, but the forum is down. But you know you said it as well as I did. I've referenced it on this forum before, and you again refused to provide a superior solution to the land problem.

Not really; that forum was generally better than this, in terms of having fewer flat-out nuts (and your being banned).

The single largest source of unearned income, and you have no interest in the subject but to name-call anyone who brings it up. And that's a fact. I challenge you to cite a single instance of you making any sort of statement on the matter that doesn't constitute marginalizing or denouncing it.

It's just a pathetic lie to claim, at this late, late stage in the game that you have no problem with the land tax. I'd say you're better than that, but you pretty much aren't. But it's useful for others to know how shameless you are.

 

How terribly convenient!

I've already told you what I said. I have no need to fib.

Standard rant over economic rents that ignores the real problem: a failure to protect worker property rights.

You want me to refer to a case where I've acknowledged that an irrelevant marginal school is actually relevant? Golly!

I don't. As already stated, I only have a problem with Georgists exaggerating the role of the land tax. That exaggeration is of course about deliberately ignoring how capitalism has evolved (see your guru's earlier comments!).

I don't expect you to find common ground with someone that embraces modern economic analysis

 

Again, not at all.

That's a lie. You've said nothing of the sort. In point of fact, you've made no denial to my claim. How slick and political you are to imply I lie, but yet never state such a claim.

Content-free

So, are you, or are you not, against land value taxation? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. A failure to reply will constitute an admission that you're just a big fat liar.

An utter, pathetic, hopeless lie. If you had any shame whatsoever, you'd never make such a contemptuous claim.

You couldn't find any common ground with anyone who in any way disagrees with your manifest advocacy of central planning. Asked multiple times to flesh your system out, you've simply refused. Why? Because it inevitably amounts to central planning. Period.

 

Golly, look at the peas in the pod! I know what I've said and tantrums won't have any effect in the reality stakes!

Within the context of a multiple tax regime? Of course not! The trouble with the inane internet Georgist is that they think any mention of land is somehow linked to Long Dead George. It isn't.

As I've said, the most desirable aim (within capitalism) is the integration of tax and benefit systems.

I don't support central planning. Like your guru you're struggling in the reality stakes!

You'll find I've mapped it out in numerous threads. You want repetition in a thread on tax. A ridiculous suggestion!

I'll sum it up though: post-Hayekian socialism which protects property rights, whilst avoiding the standard problems associated with dispersed and tacit knowledge. Try the capitalism vs socialism thread for a more detailed account. There's no excuse for laziness!

 

Taxing consumption is in itself social engineering: making people consume less. As consumption is the only purpose of economic activity, taxing consumption reduces economic activity, and the "Fair"Tax is therefore indisputably wrong-headed and economically indefensible.

Adam Smith identified their fair share: proportional to their ownership interests in the nation, not how much they consume.

No, it would merely over-reward those who are already wealthy, and crush the economy.

Unlikely, as evasion would certainly be widespread.

More accurately, it would remove any motivefor them to do so, by GUARANTEEING they would never have to pay their fair share of taxes. It would replace all the little loopholes with one giant loophole.

Not really, as they already bear the burden of shifted taxes embedded in consumer prices. "Fair"Tax advocates like to be blatantly illogical on this point, claiming on one hand that our current taxes are embedded in consumer prices, but then turning around and claiming the underground economy would only start to bear any tax burden if consumer spending were taxed. Those claims are blatantly contradictory.

You can already control how much tax you pay based on your own decisions: whether to work harder, whether to take a capital gain, etc.

The rich would pay even less tax than they do now, which is already much less than their fair share.

They already have skin in the game: their rights.

That is certainly true.

 

Everyone else here also knows what you have said, so your denials won't have any effect in the reality stakes.

??? BWAHAHAHHAHAAAA!!!

Reiver, YOU are the one who invariably follows your anti-land tax script of linking any mention of land to Henry George. Look at this very thread. I mentioned land, you instantly linked it to Henry George.

Which the proposed land value tax with uniform individual exemption does admirably.

Bingo. You are a shill for wealthy, privileged interests, especially landowning interests, and are merely pretending to advocate some sort of oxymoronic "market socialism."

I've read it. You didn't give any detailed account of what you propose, other than to insist that the welfare subsidy giveaway to wealthy landowning interests must be maintained. We have been over this before.

There's even less excuse for dishonesty.

 

Once again, you follow your invariable anti-land tax script: you offer no facts, no logic, and no arguments -- no content of any kind; just derogation, denunciation and derision.

Despicable.

 

The failure to protect worker property rights under capitalism that results from taxation of their wages and consumption is less significant than the uncompensated violation of their rights to liberty via privileges such as land titles, patent and copyright monopolies, spectrum allocations, private bank debt money issuance, etc.

You have never offered any facts or logic showing it is irrelevant, only some out-of-context quote from someone you claim is a "Georgist."

That's plainly a lie, as you denounce, deride and derogate any mention of land rent recovery on any scale, and by any means.

Lie. YOU just have to studiously ignore and loudly dismiss the still-huge role of land and land rents -- a role that any honest and informed person would indisputably acknowledge for, in Dr. Strangelove's delicious phrase, "reasons which must be all too obvious at this moment."

An "analysis" from which the distinct role of land has been ruthlessly excised, with financially, economically and socially disastrous results that are blatantly obvious in almost every major economy in the world? I should hope not.